Comments on: San Diegan Cyclists and California’s Vehicle Code 21202 (a)

By: Jim Baross

Jim Baross — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:33:57 +0000

Whether anyone agrees with any of the expressed views about CVC 21202, it should be pretty clear that there is a lack of consistent understanding of where and how bicyclists should lawfully operate/drive in the presence of other traffic. Ambiguity in traffic operations leads to crashes and bad feelings. Some of us are trying to clear up the misunderstandings and would be assisted by having documentation of incidents where bicyclists are instructed/cited/threatened to ride “out of the way” far to the right when the exception conditions of CVC21202 seem to or ARE present.
Write ‘em up and send to me or SDCBC or somewhere else you consider appropriate, but don’t just sit on these incidents. A body of documneted issues help us make the case for remediation.

By: Today’s ride, on which I get right-hooked by a bus in Bike Friendly Santa Monica « BikingInLA

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:45:00 +0000

[...] to the recent item about Andrew Wooley, the San Diego cyclist wrongly convicted of violating CVC21202 for passing a short line of cars in the right turn lane on the left, even [...]

By: aj

aj — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:55:15 +0000

To be perfectly clear, the Appellate Division of the San Diego Superior Court has not yet issued their decision. The City Attorney (the prosecution) has recommended the court overturn the original decision. So it’s pretty much assured that the decision will be overturned, but it hasn’t happened yet.

By: Richard Masoner

Richard Masoner — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:31:53 +0000

@MTS, CVC 21202 is crystal clear in explicitly stating that the cyclist must ride far to the right only when he’s traveling slower than the other traffic moving in the same direction at the same time as him. Woolley was clearly moving faster than the other traffic, and Officer Root was incorrect in issuing his citation.

The Appellate Court agreed with Woolley and found in his favor.

By: aj

aj — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:31:54 +0000

Actually, I’d like to apologize for being combative. That is clearly no way to positively influence discussions. I would be happy to discuss this with anyone who doesn’t understand why what I did was not only legal, but the safer (in my opinion safest) option on that road at that time. Sorry again for being hot-headed in my response.

By: aj

aj — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:11:34 +0000

(only one “p” in “apologize”, sorry)

By: aj

aj — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:09:46 +0000

We should probably just all ride on the sidewalk, or for that matter just walk our bikes on the sidewalk. That would be the safest thing, right?
What exactly does the law say again? Please be specific. Quote the law in full if you’d like. Wait a sec, It’s written for us at the beginning of this post! Please read it again and see if you still think I was wrong. Then read the post that details how the City Attorney agrees that I wasn’t breaking the law. Then please appologize.

By: MTS

MTS — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:26:35 +0000

The law says you need to stay as far to the right as is practible. I find nothing in the transcript from you showing why you could not stay on the shoulder or take the right lane. Cars make right turns all the time so why was this stretch of road different than any other? You failed to demonstrate that to the judge. Even if you had, you then needed to show why merely taking the right lane, which would be the right-most position if the shoulder was unsafe, was inadequate, making lane splitting your only safe option.

BTW, I never said lane-splitting was illegal. The point I was trying to get across was that it was a dumb choice.

By: aj

aj — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:42:46 +0000

@MTS: There is nothing unclear about the law. Please provide a reference from an accredited bicycle safety manual which explains that passing on the left is more dangerous. There is a big difference between what some people think is safe (the policeman, the judge, you) and what is actually safe (passing slow moving vehicles on the left). Passing through an intersection to the left of right-turning vehilces results in zero potential collision points. Trying to cut between a queue of moving, turning vehilcles results in at least two potential collision points that I can think of (the car turning, and any cars passing around that car).

In California there is no law against lane splitting. It is legal.

A judge who doesn’t pay attention to what the law actually says deserves a lot more than a “lecture.”

By: MTS

MTS — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:53:57 +0000

It looks like the law is not crystal clear here so I am going to have to agree with the officer and the judge on this one. The cyclist was not taking the lane, he was splitting lanes. Riding down the middle like that was so unsafe. He left himself open to lane changes from both sides, not to mention what happens when traffic picked up speed again. The right side was safer since you knew where the right turns could happen, unlike random lane changes.

On a different note, the cyclist did himself no favors by lecturing the judge on what the law is. Arguing at the end like that was just the final nails on the coffin.